Genomic Insights for Personalized Care: Motivating At-Risk Individuals Toward Evidence-Based Health Practices.

Lung cancer and tobacco use pose significant global health challenges and require a comprehensive translational roadmap for improved prevention strategies. We propose the GREAT care paradigm ( G enomic Informed Care for Motivating High R isk Individuals E ligible for Evidence-b a sed Prevention), which employs polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to stratify disease risk and personalize interventions, such as lung cancer screening and tobacco treatment. We developed PRSs using large-scale multi-ancestry genome-wide association studies and adjusted for genetic ancestry for standardized risk stratification across diverse populations. We applied our PRSs to over 340,000 individuals of diverse ethnic background and found significant odds ratios for lung cancer and difficulty quitting smoking. These findings enable the evaluation of PRS-based interventions in ongoing trials aimed at motivating health behavior changes in high-risk patients. This pioneering approach enhances primary care with genomic insights, promising improved outcomes in cancer prevention and tobacco treatment, and is currently under assessment in clinical trials.

Leveraging Implementation Science in the Treatment of Tobacco Use Disorder.

The tobacco use disorder field has an armamentarium of approaches to help people quit smoking: medication-based treatment for tobacco use, digital therapeutics for just-intime behavioral interventions, genetic and metabolic biomarkers to guide tobacco treatment, to name a few. Whether the treatment approach is old or new, an underlying truth remains: the benefit is only as great as the extent to which these treatment approaches reach individuals who need them most and prove effective and feasible to implement in real-world settings. Further, certain treatments tend to be used more robustly in practice, namely, those that address a great need yet are low in cost, burden, and risk of clinical harms. This is where implementation science comes in, providing guidance on how best to get effective treatments adopted and used in clinical and community settings. Implementation science holds the keys to the uptake and routine use of evidence-based treatments and should be more fully leveraged in the tobacco use disorder field. At the same time, disruptive technologies in treatment are breaking new ground, pushing the field of implementation science to build a bigger "toolbox" of ways to improve access and quality of treatment in an ever-evolving landscape. In this paper, we underscore this synergy between tobacco treatment and implementation science. We spotlight emerging trends in tobacco use, effective and emerging treatment approaches for tobacco use, and ways that implementation science intersects with the current and evolving landscape of tobacco use and substance use disorder more broadly.

Genomic medicine to reduce tobacco and related disorders: Translation to precision prevention and treatment.

Genomic medicine can enhance prevention and treatment. First, we propose that advances in genomics have the potential to enhance assessment of disease risk, improve prognostic predictions, and guide treatment development and application. Clinical implementation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) has emerged as an area of active research. The pathway from genomic discovery to implementation is an iterative process. Second, we provide examples on how genomic medicine has the potential to solve problems in prevention and treatment using two examples: Lung cancer screening and evidence-based tobacco treatment are both under-utilized and great opportunities for genomic interventions. Third, we discuss the translational process for developing genomic interventions from evidence to implementation by presenting a model to evaluate genomic evidence for clinical implementation, mechanisms of genomic interventions, and patient desire for genomic interventions. Fourth, we present potential challenges in genomic interventions including a great need for evidence in all diverse populations, little evidence on treatment algorithms, challenges in accommodating a dynamic evidence base, and implementation challenges in real world clinical settings. Finally, we conclude that research to identify genomic markers that are associated with smoking cessation success and the efficacy of smoking cessation treatments is needed to empower people of all diverse ancestry. Importantly, genomic data can be used to help identify patients with elevated risk for nicotine addiction, difficulty quitting smoking, favorable response to specific pharmacotherapy, and tobacco-related health problems.

Data envelopment analysis to evaluate the efficiency of tobacco treatment programs in the NCI Moonshot Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) is a National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Moonshot Program that supports NCI-designated cancer centers developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients who smoke. C3I-funded centers implement evidence-based programs that offer various smoking cessation treatment components (e.g., counseling, Quitline referrals, access to medications). While evaluation of implementation outcomes in C3I is guided by evaluation of reach and effectiveness (via RE-AIM), little is known about technical efficiency-i.e., how inputs (e.g., program costs, staff time) influence implementation outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the application of data envelopment analysis (DEA) as an implementation science tool to evaluate technical efficiency of C3I programs and advance prioritization of implementation resources. METHODS: DEA is a linear programming technique widely used in economics and engineering for assessing relative performance of production units. Using data from 16 C3I-funded centers reported in 2020, we applied input-oriented DEA to model technical efficiency (i.e., proportion of observed outcomes to benchmarked outcomes for given input levels). The primary models used the constant returns-to-scale specification and featured cost-per-participant, total full-time equivalent (FTE) effort, and tobacco treatment specialist effort as model inputs and reach and effectiveness (quit rates) as outcomes. RESULTS: In the DEA model featuring cost-per-participant (input) and reach/effectiveness (outcomes), average constant returns-to-scale technical efficiency was 25.66 (SD = 24.56). When stratified by program characteristics, technical efficiency was higher among programs in cohort 1 (M = 29.15, SD = 28.65, n = 11) vs. cohort 2 (M = 17.99, SD = 10.16, n = 5), with point-of-care (M = 33.90, SD = 28.63, n = 9) vs. no point-of-care services (M = 15.59, SD = 14.31, n = 7), larger (M = 33.63, SD = 30.38, n = 8) vs. smaller center size (M = 17.70, SD = 15.00, n = 8), and higher (M = 29.65, SD = 30.99, n = 8) vs. lower smoking prevalence (M = 21.67, SD = 17.21, n = 8). CONCLUSION: Most C3I programs assessed were technically inefficient relative to the most efficient center benchmark and may be improved by optimizing the use of inputs (e.g., cost-per-participant) relative to program outcomes (e.g., reach, effectiveness). This study demonstrates the appropriateness and feasibility of using DEA to evaluate the relative performance of evidence-based programs.

Integrating Tobacco Treatment Into Oncology Care: Reach and Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Tobacco Treatment Across National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Quitting smoking improves patients' clinical outcomes, yet smoking is not commonly addressed as part of cancer care. The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) supports National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers to integrate tobacco treatment programs (TTPs) into routine cancer care. C3I centers vary in size, implementation strategies used, and treatment approaches. We examined associations of these contextual factors with treatment reach and smoking cessation effectiveness. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used survey data from 28 C3I centers that reported tobacco treatment data during the first 6 months of 2021. Primary outcomes of interest were treatment reach (reach)-the proportion of patients identified as currently smoking who received at least one evidence-based tobacco treatment component (eg, counseling and pharmacotherapy)-and smoking cessation effectiveness (effectiveness)-the proportion of patients reporting 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-month follow-up. Center-level differences in reach and effectiveness were examined by center characteristics, implementation strategies, and tobacco treatment components. RESULTS: Of the total 692,662 unique patients seen, 44,437 reported current smoking. Across centers, a median of 96% of patients were screened for tobacco use, median smoking prevalence was 7.4%, median reach was 15.4%, and median effectiveness was 18.4%. Center-level characteristics associated with higher reach included higher smoking prevalence, use of center-wide TTP, and lower patient-to-tobacco treatment specialist ratio. Higher effectiveness was observed at centers that served a larger overall population and population of patients who smoke, reported a higher smoking prevalence, and/or offered electronic health record referrals via a closed-loop system. CONCLUSION: Whole-center TTP implementation among inpatients and outpatients, and increasing staff-to-patient ratios may improve TTP reach. Designating personnel with tobacco treatment expertise and resources to increase tobacco treatment dose or intensity may improve smoking cessation effectiveness.

Assessment of Duration of Smoking Cessation Prior to Surgical Treatment of Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To define the relationship between the duration of smoking cessation and postoperative complications for patients with lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment. BACKGROUND: Smoking increases the risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment. Although smoking cessation before surgery can mitigate these risks, the ideal duration of preoperative smoking cessation remains unclear. METHODS: Using a uniquely compiled Veterans Health Administration dataset, we performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer undergoing surgical treatment between 2006 and 2016. We characterized the relationship between duration of preoperative smoking cessation and risk of postoperative complications or mortality within 30-days using multivariable restricted cubic spline functions. RESULTS: The study included a total of 9509 patients, of whom 6168 (64.9%) were smoking at the time of lung cancer diagnosis. Among them, only 662 (10.7%) patients stopped smoking prior to surgery. Longer duration between smoking cessation and surgery was associated with lower odds of major complication or mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for every additional week, 0.919; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.850-0.993; P = 0.03). Compared to nonsmokers, patients who quit at least 3 weeks before surgery had similar odds of death or major complication (aOR, 1.005; 95% CI, 0.702-1.437; P = 0.98) whereas those who quit within 3 weeks of surgery had significantly higher odds of death or major complication (aOR, 1.698; 95% CI, 1.203-2.396; P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Smoking cessation at least 3 weeks prior to the surgical treatment of lung cancer is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality. Providers should aggressively encourage smoking cessation in the preoperative period, since it can disproportionately impact outcomes in early-stage lung cancer.

Relations of Current and Past Cancer with Severe Outcomes among 104,590 Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: The COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: There is mixed evidence about the relations of current versus past cancer with severe COVID-19 outcomes and how they vary by patient and cancer characteristics. METHODS: Electronic health record data of 104,590 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were obtained from 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. In-hospital mortality and ICU admission were predicted from current and past cancer diagnoses. Moderation by patient characteristics, vaccination status, cancer type, and year of the pandemic was examined. RESULTS: 6.8% of the patients had current (n = 7,141) and 6.5% had past (n = 6,749) cancer diagnoses. Current cancer predicted both severe outcomes but past cancer did not; adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for mortality were 1.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46-1.70] and 1.04 (95% CI, 0.96-1.13), respectively. Mortality rates decreased over the pandemic but the incremental risk of current cancer persisted, with the increment being larger among younger vs. older patients. Prior COVID-19 vaccination reduced mortality generally and among those with current cancer (aOR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Current cancer, especially among younger patients, posed a substantially increased risk for death and ICU admission among patients with COVID-19; prior COVID-19 vaccination mitigated the risk associated with current cancer. Past history of cancer was not associated with higher risks for severe COVID-19 outcomes for most cancer types. IMPACT: This study clarifies the characteristics that modify the risk associated with cancer on severe COVID-19 outcomes across the first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. See related commentary by Egan et al., p. 3.

Smoking Status, Nicotine Medication, Vaccination, and COVID-19 Hospital Outcomes: Findings from the COVID EHR Cohort at the University of Wisconsin (CEC-UW) Study.

INTRODUCTION: Available evidence is mixed concerning associations between smoking status and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Effects of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and vaccination status on COVID-19 outcomes in smokers are unknown. METHODS: Electronic health record data from 104 590 COVID-19 patients hospitalized February 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021 in 21 U.S. health systems were analyzed to assess associations of smoking status, in-hospital NRT prescription, and vaccination status with in-hospital death and ICU admission. RESULTS: Current (n = 7764) and never smokers (n = 57 454) did not differ on outcomes after adjustment for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, body mass index, and comorbidities. Former (vs never) smokers (n = 33 101) had higher adjusted odds of death (aOR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.06-1.17) and ICU admission (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). Among current smokers, NRT prescription was associated with reduced mortality (aOR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50-0.82). Vaccination effects were significantly moderated by smoking status; vaccination was more strongly associated with reduced mortality among current (aOR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.66) and former smokers (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57) than for never smokers (aOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.79). Vaccination was associated with reduced ICU admission more strongly among former (aOR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.66-0.83) than never smokers (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Former but not current smokers hospitalized with COVID-19 are at higher risk for severe outcomes. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with better hospital outcomes in COVID-19 patients, especially current and former smokers. NRT during COVID-19 hospitalization may reduce mortality for current smokers. IMPLICATIONS: Prior findings regarding associations between smoking and severe COVID-19 disease outcomes have been inconsistent. This large cohort study suggests potential beneficial effects of nicotine replacement therapy on COVID-19 outcomes in current smokers and outsized benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in current and former smokers. Such findings may influence clinical practice and prevention efforts and motivate additional research that explores mechanisms for these effects.

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems.

MAIN OBJECTIVE: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04506528 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).

Underutilization of guideline-concordant smoking cessation treatments in surgical patients: Lessons from a learning health system.

While smoking is a well-established risk factor for surgical complications, it is unclear how frequently guideline-concordant tobacco treatments are prescribed to surgical patients. In this cross-sectional study including 164673 unique patients evaluated in outpatient surgery clinics at a single institution in 2020, despite a relatively high smoking prevalence (14.7%), guideline-concordant treatment rates were very low, with only 12.7% of patients receiving pharmacotherapy and 31.7% receiving any treatment. Addressing disparities in smoking cessation treatments are critical given the disproportionate impact of smoking on surgical outcomes.

Assessment of formal tobacco treatment and smoking cessation in dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes.

BACKGROUND: The utility of electronic cigarettes ('e-cigarettes') as a smoking cessation adjunct remains unclear. Similarly, it is unclear if formal tobacco treatment (pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) augments smoking cessation in individuals who use both cigarettes and e-cigarettes. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal cohort study of adult outpatients evaluated in our tertiary care medical centre (6/2018-6/2020). E-cigarette use, smoking status and formal tobacco treatment (deterrent pharmacotherapy and/or behavioural support) were assessed in 6-month blocks (eg, cohort 1 (C1)=6/2018-12/2018, C2=1/2019-6/2019 and so on) using our electronic health record. We assessed the relationship between e-cigarette use (either with or without formal tobacco treatment) and point prevalence of smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: 111 823 unique patients were included in the study. The prevalence of dual use of cigarettes and e-cigarettes increased significantly over the study period (C1=0.8%; C2=1.1%; C3=1.8%; C4=2.3%; p<0.001). The prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among e-cigarette users (20.8%) compared with non-users (16.8%) (risk difference, 4.0% (95% CI 2.5% to 5.5%); adjusted relative risk (aRR) 1.354, 95% CI 1.252 to 1.464, p<0.0001). Further, among dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, the prevalence of smoking cessation at 12 months was higher among individuals who received tobacco treatment (29.1%) compared with individuals who did not receive tobacco treatment (19.6%) (risk difference, 9.5% (95% CI, 4.6% to 14.4%); aRR 1.238, 95% CI 1.071 to 1.432, p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest that dual users of cigarettes and e-cigarettes benefit from formal tobacco treatment. Clinicians should consider offering formal tobacco treatment to such patients, though future trials are needed.

Increased Reach and Effectiveness With a Low-Burden Point-of-Care Tobacco Treatment Program in Cancer Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco cessation after a cancer diagnosis can extend patient survival by improving outcomes for primary cancer and preventing secondary cancers. However, smoking is often unaddressed in cancer care, highlighting the need for strategies to increase treatment reach and cessation. This study examined a low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment program (ELEVATE) featuring an electronic health record-enabled smoking module and decision support tools to increase the reach and effectiveness of evidence-based smoking cessation treatment. METHODS: This study included adult outpatient tobacco smokers (n=13,651) in medical oncology, internal medicine, and surgical oncology clinics from a large midwestern healthcare system. We examined reach and effectiveness of ELEVATE with 2 comparisons: (1) preimplementation versus postimplementation of ELEVATE and (2) ELEVATE versus usual care. Data were evaluated during 2 time periods: preimplementation (January through May 2018) and postimplementation (June through December 2018), with smoking cessation assessed at the last follow-up outpatient encounter during the 6 months after these periods. RESULTS: The proportion of current tobacco smokers receiving cessation treatment increased from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (1.6%-27.9%; difference, 26.3%; relative risk, 16.9 [95% CI, 9.8-29.2]; P<.001). Compared with 27.9% treatment reach with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, reach within usual care clinics ranged from 11.8% to 12.0% during this same period. The proportion of tobacco smokers who subsequently achieved cessation increased significantly from pre-ELEVATE to post-ELEVATE (12.0% vs 17.2%; difference, 5.2%; relative risk, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.5]; P=.002). Compared with 17.2% smoking cessation with ELEVATE in the postimplementation time period, achievement of cessation within usual care clinics ranged from 8.2% to 9.9% during this same period. CONCLUSIONS: A low-burden, point-of-care tobacco treatment strategy increased tobacco treatment and cessation, thereby improving access to and the impact of evidence-based cessation treatment. Using implementation strategies to embed tobacco treatment in every healthcare encounter promises to engage more smokers in evidence-based treatment and facilitate smoking cessation, thereby improving care cancer for patients who smoke.

Quantifying rural disparity in healthcare utilization in the United States: Analysis of a large midwestern healthcare system.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study is to identify how predisposing characteristics, enabling factors, and health needs are jointly and individually associated with epidemiological patterns of outpatient healthcare utilization for patients who already interact and engage with a large healthcare system. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed electronic medical record data from 1,423,166 outpatient clinic visits from 474,674 patients in a large healthcare system from June 2018-March 2019. We evaluated patients who exclusively visited rural clinics versus patients who exclusively visited urban clinics using Chi-square tests and the generalized estimating equation Poisson regression methodology. The outcome was healthcare use defined by the number of outpatient visits to clinics within the healthcare system and independent variables included age, gender, race, ethnicity, smoking status, health status, and rural or urban clinic location. Supplementary analyses were conducted observing healthcare use patterns within rural and urban clinics separately and within primary care and specialty clinics separately. FINDINGS: Patients in rural clinics vs. urban clinics had worse health status [χ2 = 935.1, df = 3, p<0.0001]. Additionally, patients in rural clinics had lower healthcare utilization than patients in urban clinics, adjusting for age, race, ethnicity, gender, smoking, and health status [2.49 vs. 3.18 visits, RR = 0.61, 95%CI = (0.55,0.68), p<0.0001]. Further, patients in rural clinics had lower utilization for both primary care and specialty care visits. CONCLUSIONS: Within the large healthcare system, patients in rural clinics had lower outpatient healthcare utilization compared to their urban counterparts despite having potentially elevated health needs reflected by a higher number of unique health diagnoses documented in their electronic health records after adjusting for multiple factors. This work can inform future studies exploring the roots and ramifications of rural-urban healthcare utilization differences and rural healthcare disparities.

The Promise of Polygenic Risk Prediction in Smoking Cessation: Evidence From Two Treatment Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Tobacco use disorder is a complex behavior with a strong genetic component. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on smoking behaviors allow for the creation of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) to approximate genetic vulnerability. However, the utility of smoking-related PRSs in predicting smoking cessation in clinical trials remains unknown. AIMS AND METHODS: We evaluated the association between polygenic risk scores and bioverified smoking abstinence in a meta-analysis of two randomized, placebo-controlled smoking cessation trials. PRSs of smoking behaviors were created using the GWAS and Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use (GSCAN) consortium summary statistics. We evaluated the utility of using individual PRS of specific smoking behavior versus a combined genetic risk that combines PRS of all four smoking behaviors. Study participants came from the Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURCs) Study (1091 smokers of European descent), and the Genetically Informed Smoking Cessation Trial (GISC) Study (501 smokers of European descent). RESULTS: PRS of later age of smoking initiation (OR [95% CI]: 1.20, [1.04-1.37], p = .0097) was significantly associated with bioverified smoking abstinence at end of treatment. In addition, the combined PRS of smoking behaviors also significantly predicted bioverified smoking abstinence (OR [95% CI] 0.71 [0.51-0.99], p = .045). CONCLUSIONS: PRS of later age at smoking initiation may be useful in predicting smoking cessation at the end of treatment. A combined PRS may be a useful predictor for smoking abstinence by capturing the genetic propensity for multiple smoking behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: There is a potential for polygenic risk scores to inform future clinical medicine, and a great need for evidence on whether these scores predict clinically meaningful outcomes. Our meta-analysis provides early evidence for potential utility of using polygenic risk scores to predict smoking cessation amongst smokers undergoing quit attempts, informing further work to optimize the use of polygenic risk scores in clinical care.

Point of care tobacco treatment sustains during COVID-19, a global pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients is essential to providing comprehensive oncologic care. We have implemented a point of care tobacco treatment care model enabled by electronic health record (EHR) modifications in a comprehensive cancer center. Data are needed on the sustainability of both reach of treatment and effectiveness over time, including the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using EHR data from the pre-implementation (P: 5 months) and post-implementation periods (6 month-blocks, T1-T5 for a total of 30 months), we compared two primary outcomes: 1) reach of treatment among those smoking and 2) effectiveness assessed by smoking cessation among those smoking in the subsequent 6 month period. We analyzed the data using generalized estimation equation regression models. RESULTS: With the point of care tobacco treatment care model, reach of treatment increased from pre to post T5 (3.2 % vs. 48.4 %, RR 15.50, 95 % CI 10.56-22.74, p < 0.0001). Reach of treatment in all post periods (T1-T5 including the COVID-19 pandemic time) remained significantly higher than the pre period. Effectiveness, defined by smoking cessation among those smoking, increased from pre to post T2 before the pandemic (12.4 % vs. 21.4 %, RR 1.57, 95 % CI 1.31-1.87, p < 0.0001). However, effectiveness, while higher in later post periods (T3, T4), was no longer significantly increased compared with the pre period. CONCLUSION: A point of care EHR-enabled tobacco treatment care model demonstrates sustained reach up to 30 months following implementation, even during the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in healthcare prioritization. Effectiveness was sustained for 12 months, but did not sustain through the subsequent 12 months.

The Impact of Persistent Smoking After Surgery on Long-term Outcomes After Stage I Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Resection.

BACKGROUND: Smoking at the time of surgical treatment for lung cancer increases the risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. The prevalence of persistent smoking in the postoperative period and its association with long-term oncologic outcomes are poorly described. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the relationship between persistent smoking and long-term outcomes in early-stage lung cancer after surgical treatment? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a uniquely compiled Veterans Health Administration dataset of patients with clinical stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing surgical treatment between 2006 and 2016. We defined persistent smoking as individuals who continued smoking 1 year after surgery and characterized the relationship between persistent smoking and disease-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: This study included 7,489 patients undergoing surgical treatment for clinical stage I NSCLC. Of 4,562 patients (60.9%) who were smoking at the time of surgery, 2,648 patients (58.0%) continued to smoke at 1 year after surgery. Among 2,927 patients (39.1%) who were not smoking at the time of surgical treatment, 573 (19.6%) relapsed and were smoking at 1 year after surgery. Persistent smoking at 1 year after surgery was associated with significantly shorter overall survival (adjusted hazard ration [aHR], 1.291; 95% CI, 1.197-1.392; P < .001). However, persistent smoking was not associated with inferior disease-free survival (aHR, 0.989; 95% CI, 0.884-1.106; P = .84). INTERPRETATION: Persistent smoking after surgery for stage I NSCLC is common and is associated with inferior overall survival. Providers should continue to assess smoking habits in the postoperative period given its disproportionate impact on long-term outcomes after potentially curative treatment for early-stage lung cancer.

Studying the Utility of Using Genetics to Predict Smoking-Related Outcomes in a Population-Based Study and a Selected Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to examine the predictive utility of polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for smoking behaviors. AIMS AND METHODS: Using summary statistics from the Sequencing Consortium of Alcohol and Nicotine use consortium, we generated PRSs of ever smoking, age of smoking initiation, cigarettes smoked per day, and smoking cessation for participants in the population-based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (N = 8638), and the Collaborative Genetic Study of Nicotine Dependence (COGEND) (N = 1935). The outcomes were ever smoking, age of smoking initiation, heaviness of smoking, and smoking cessation. RESULTS: In the European ancestry cohorts, each PRS was significantly associated with the corresponding smoking behavior outcome. In the ARIC cohort, the PRS z-score for ever smoking predicted smoking (odds ratio [OR]: 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31, 1.43); the PRS z-score for age of smoking initiation was associated with age of smoking initiation (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82, 0.92); the PRS z-score for cigarettes per day was associated with heavier smoking (OR: 1.17; 95% CI: 1.11, 1.25); and the PRS z-score for smoking cessation predicted successful cessation (OR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.17, 1.32). In the African ancestry cohort, the PRSs did not predict smoking behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking-related PRSs were associated with smoking-related behaviors in European ancestry populations. This improvement in prediction is greatest in the lowest and highest genetic risk categories. The lack of prediction in African ancestry populations highlights the urgent need to increase diversity in research so that scientific advances can be applied to populations other than those of European ancestry. IMPLICATIONS: This study shows that including both genetic ancestry and PRSs in a single model increases the ability to predict smoking behaviors compared with the model including only demographic characteristics. This finding is observed for every smoking-related outcome. Even though adding genetics is more predictive, the demographics alone confer substantial and meaningful predictive power. However, with increasing work in PRSs, the predictive ability will continue to improve.

Mixed-methods economic evaluation of the implementation of tobacco treatment programs in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers.

BACKGROUND: The Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) was launched in 2017 as a part of the NCI Cancer Moonshot program to assist NCI-designated cancer centers in developing tobacco treatment programs for oncology patients. Participating centers have implemented varied evidence-based programs that fit their institutional resources and needs, offering a wide range of services including in-person and telephone-based counseling, point of care, interactive voice response systems, referral to the quitline, text- and web-based services, and medications. METHODS: We used a mixed methods comparative case study design to evaluate system-level implementation costs across 15 C3I-funded cancer centers that reported for at least one 6-month period between July 2018 and June 2020. We analyzed operating costs by resource category (e.g., personnel, medications) concurrently with transcripts from semi-structured key-informant interviews conducted during site visits. Personnel salary costs were estimated using Bureau of Labor Statistics wage data adjusted for area and occupation, and non-wage benefits. Qualitative findings provided additional information on intangible resources and contextual factors related to implementation costs. RESULTS: Median total monthly operating costs across funded centers were $11,045 (range: $5129-$20,751). The largest median operating cost category was personnel ($10,307; range: $4122-$19,794), with the highest personnel costs attributable to the provision of in-person program services. Monthly (non-zero) cost ranges for other categories were medications ($17-$573), materials ($6-$435), training ($96-$516), technology ($171-$2759), and equipment ($10-$620). Median cost-per-participant was $466 (range: $70-$2093) and cost-per-quit was $2688 (range: $330-$9628), with sites offering different combinations of program components, ranging from individually-delivered in-person counseling only to one program that offered all components. Site interviews provided context for understanding variations in program components and their cost implications. CONCLUSIONS: Among most centers that have progressed in tobacco treatment program implementation, cost-per-quit was modest relative to other prevention interventions. Although select centers have achieved similar average costs by offering program components of various levels of intensity, they have varied widely in program reach and effectiveness. Evaluating implementation costs of such programs alongside reach and effectiveness is necessary to provide decision makers in oncology settings with the important additional information needed to optimize resource allocation when establishing tobacco treatment programs.

Racial disparities in intensity of smoke exposure and nicotine intake among low-dependence smokers.

BACKGROUND: Compared to white smokers, Black smokers are at disproportionately higher risk for smoking-related disease, despite consuming fewer cigarettes per day (CPD). To examine racial disparities in biobehavioral influences on smoking and disease risk, we analyzed the relationship between self-reported tobacco dependence and intensity of tobacco smoke exposure per cigarette, on the one hand, and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette, on the other. METHODS: In 270 Black and 516 white smokers, smoke exposure was measured by expired carbon monoxide (CO), and nicotine intake was measured by plasma cotinine (COT) and cotinine+3'-hydroxycotinine ([COT + 3HC]). Using linear regression analyses, we analyzed how the Fagerström Test for Cigarette Dependence (FTCD) predicted intensity of smoke exposure per cigarette (CO/CPD) and intensity of nicotine intake per cigarette (COT/CPD; [COT + 3HC]/CPD), and how race moderated these relations. RESULTS: Overall, Black smokers consumed fewer CPD than white smokers and had higher levels of CO/CPD, COT/CPD, and [COT + 3HC]/CPD. These elevations were most pronounced at lower levels of dependence: amongst Black smokers, FTCD negatively predicted intensity of smoke exposure as measured by CO/CPD (B = -0.12, 95% CI = -0.18, -0.05, p = 0.0003) and intensity of nicotine intake as measured by [COT + 3HC]/CPD (B = -1.31, 95% CI = -2.15, -0.46, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dependence Black smokers had higher intensities of both smoke exposure and nicotine intake per cigarette compared to similarly dependent white smokers, suggesting that measures of dependence, exposure, and intake underestimate incremental risk of each cigarette to Black smokers.